While sites like The Pirate Bay are busy improving the experience for the torrent-loving crowd, Google's facing the task of processing an extreme amount of removal request for pirate links. According to a recent transparency report on the matter, Google is now seeing more than 1 million DMCA takedown notices per day. In the previous week alone, for instance, the tech giant was asked to remove about 8 million results from its search engine. As TorrentFreak points out, the amount of copyright removal notices sent to Google has seen a tremendous spike in recent times -- it wasn't long ago that the number of takedown requests was in the low-hundreds for the entire year. With the growth of the internet as a whole, however, it's easy to see how that's come to be. You can peruse the report in full here, if you're into that sort of thing.

You probably didn't know it, but the legality of what you're doing right now has been a hotly debated issue in EU courts -- reading articles online. For the last four years the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) and the Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA) have been trying to determine if browsing and viewing copyrighted material online required the authorization of the copyright holder; today the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that it does not. It sounds like a no-brainer, but the facts are a little more complicated: the two groups were arguing over the application of licenses to media monitoring agencies and their effects on the end-user.

The seemingly inevitable has happened: following in the footsteps of the MPAA, the big music labels behind the RIAA have filed a copyright lawsuit against Megaupload. The companies assert that Kim Dotcom and crew both fostered and "handsomely profited from" illegally copied tunes shared through the service before the federal government shut it down. The RIAA is quick to add that Megaupload's death resulted in a drop in piracy across the board -- that's surely evidence that it was up to no good, right?

Google's lawyers visited the Second Circuit Court of Appeals last week for a polite conversation with three judges and attorneys from the Authors Guild. You remember -- the book-scanning thing? Yes, the case is 7 years old and still unresolved. The Circuit Court is just a way station in a longer journey -- at issue is whether the Authors Guild's class action suit should be broken apart, forcing authors and publishers to confront Google individually.

Google is going to win this thing eventually. If that makes Google evil, it is a necessary evil.

The bigger question is about the lawfulness of Google's digital library quest, and the legitimacy of the Guild's copyright charges and request for damages. There are points of similarity to the music industry's litigation saga. And major differences. Google is going to win this thing eventually. If that makes Google evil, it is a necessary evil.

YouTube trends may have changed over the last few years, but the company's legal standing hasn't: according to a federal judge, the DMCA still protects the streaming site from Viacom's copyright claims. The ruling responds to Viacom's appeal of a 2010 case, which stated that YouTube couldn't be held responsible for copyright infringing content uploaded by its users. Viacom sought to revise the ruling, insisting that YouTube was "willfully blind" of the activity. That may be the case, but Judge Louis Stanton sees things differently. "Knowledge of the prevalence of infringing activity, and welcoming it, does not itself forfeit the safe harbor. To forfeit that, the provider must influence or participate in the infringement." Since YouTube doesn't pre-screen content before throwing it live, and because it always takes down infringing content upon request, it simply isn't liable.

Viacom says that the decision "ignores the opinions of the higher courts and completely disregards the rights of creative artists," and promises to appeal the decision again with hopes of taking the case to a jury. Google, on the other hand, is playing it cool. "The court correctly rejected Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube, reaffirming that Congress got it right when it comes to copyright on the Internet. This is a win not just for YouTube, but for people everywhere who depend on the Internet to exchange ideas and information." Looking for a side to pick? Check out the court's full decision after the break.

ReDigi took a gamble that it could resell legally purchased song downloads, much as you would that one-hit wonder CD you bought in high school. Unfortunately for ReDigi, the odds weren't ultimately in its favor: a Southern District of New York court has shot down ReDigi's appeal against a Capitol Records lawsuit accusing it of copyright infringement. The court didn't accept ReDigi's view that first sale principles apply to strictly digital music, at least as its service implements the technology. While the startup tries to keep traders honest by making them delete originals after a resale, the process by its digital nature still involves making a copy of the track without Capitol's permission, according to the court. We'll have to wait to know what penalties ReDigi might pay, but there's enough legal precedent in the case that it's doubtful others will follow in the service's experimental footsteps.

Curious as to how well Google plays with the governments of the world? Well, you need look no further than the company's latest Transparency Report, which details instances of content removal and user data requests over a six month span. And in this latest issuance, Mountain View's pulling the curtain back once again, revealing its rate of compliance alongside the actual number of individual account access requests it's received. Topping out the list with the highest amount of private / public cooperation is none other than the United States at a near fully submissive 90-percent, with Japan and Denmark following closely behind. There's no need to dole out the conspiracy theories just yet though -- the majority of these events are linked to criminal investigations and copyright infringement complaints. Still, it's an eye-opening glimpse into the life of our personal data and the price you pay for free services. Check out the source below to parse the granular bits of privacy data on display.

The fact that ISPs are working with the RIAA in a bid to squash piracy is far from new. A leaked document claiming to be AT&T training materials, however, suggests that the operator is about to stop talking, and start doing. According to TorrentFreak notifications will be sent out to customers on November 28th about the change in policy, with those suspected of illicit downloads receiving an email alerting them of the possible copyright infringement. We'd previously heard of a six-stage notification system, and this, too, is mentioned here with repeat offenders facing access to "many of the most frequently visited websites" restricted. Even stranger, is the talk of having to complete an online tutorial about copyright to get the restrictions lifted. As AT&T is part of the MPAA and RIAA-backed Center for Copyright Information, it's likely that the other members (Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Cablevision), will be prepping similar plans. We've asked AT&T for confirmation directly, but for now keep an eye on the mail.

In the last several years Google has become quick to respond to complaints of copyright infringement. Unfortunately, its record in dealing with unfounded claims (specifically on YouTube) is a bit mixed. In particular the process for appealing a Content ID takedown has left many users frustrated and with little recourse in the event of a rejected dispute. And its the content owners themselves who make that decision. Starting today, even if a dispute is rejected, users can file an appeal that leaves a content owner with one of two choices -- rescind the complaint or file a proper DMCA takedown notice. To minimize the amount of appeals and disputes Google is also launching an improved Content ID algorithm that identifies potentially invalid claims and places them in a queue to be reviewed manually before takedowns are issued. For more, check out the source.

Update: Wired has a statement from Google clarifying that the queue flagged content ends up in is for it to be reviewed manually by the content owner, not Google itself.

After watching Judge Alsup strike down its patent and Java API infringement claims, Oracle seems to be cutting its losses, agreeing to accept $0 in damages from Google. Confused? So was the Judge, who reportedly responded to the proposal by asking, "is there a catch I need to be aware of?" No catch, but Oracle isn't giving up, stating that it's taking its case to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If successful, the appeal could put the two firms back in Alsup's courtroom, perhaps asking for somewhere between the previously proposed $32.3 million and today's sum total of zilch. We'll let you know when the drama comes around again.

Thought the Oracle v. Google litigation fireworks were over? Well, if you weren't aware, during the copyright phase of the trial, the jury found that Google had infringed the structure, sequence and organization of Oracle's Java APIs. However, at the time, Judge Alsup had yet to evaluate the validity of Oracle's API copyright claims upon which that verdict was based. Today, Alsup found that Oracle's argument didn't hold water because it would expand the breadth of copyright holder's rights too far -- in essence, it would allow owners of software code to prevent others from writing different versions to perform the same functions. This ruling renders the jury's earlier infringement verdict moot, and gives Mountain View yet another courtroom victory. Despite this latest defeat, Oracle's sure to run the case up one more rung on the legal ladder, so let the countdown to the appeal begin.

Google has been publishing what it's dubbed Transparency Reports for some time now -- detailing things like government requests to remove content from search results or requests for users' information -- and it's now added another big chunk of data to them in the interest of full disclosure. Starting today, you can see the number of removal requests it receives from companies over copyright and piracy concerns. As you can imagine, there's a lot -- over 1.2 million in the past month alone, a number that Google notes is increasing at a substantial rate. Among those asking for takedowns, Microsoft is by far the leader, filing well over half a million requests all by itself in the past month (the film and music industries are also, of course, well represented). You can pour through all the results yourself at the source link below.

It appears that the jury has come to a conclusion in the Oracle v. Google trial, determining that Android does not infringe Oracle patents. Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for Northern California exonerated the search giant following a trial that lasted three weeks, ruling that Google did not infringe on six claims in US Patent RE38,104, along two claims in US Patent 6,061,520. Jurors were dismissed following today's ruling, with the trial's damages phase reportedly set to begin on Tuesday. According to The Verge, the jury did determine that Google was responsible for two counts of minor copyright infringement, relating to the order of Java APIs and several lines of rangeCheck code, which could be matched with a maximum penalty of $150,000 for each count. Regardless, it appears that the lawsuit, which dates back to 2010, when Oracle filed against Google for copyright and patent infringement related to Sun's Java code, could finally be coming to a close.

Aereo's mini-antenna arrays started streaming OTA television broadcasts in Gotham a couple months ago in spite of the lawsuit filed by a few of New York's local stations to stop them from doing so. Today, it was able to dismiss its opponents' state law unfair competition claim under the theory of federal preemption. Essentially, Aereo argued (and the judge agreed) that the anti-competition claim was actually an attempt to vindicate the broadcasters' rights to control the performance of their copyrighted materials. Because those rights are granted under federal law, the state law claim was preempted and dismissed from the lawsuit pursuant to the Copyright Act. Despite this courtroom victory, Aereo still has a lot of legal legwork to do, as it still faces two copyright claims that could still shut down the OTA streaming party. Stay tuned.

]]>
Mon, 21 May 2012 19:21:00 -040021|20242205http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/05/viacom-wins-appeal-against-youtube/%3Futm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%26ncid%3Drss_semi
http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/05/viacom-wins-appeal-against-youtube/http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/05/viacom-wins-appeal-against-youtube/%3Futm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%23commentsIt's been almost two years since YouTube's triumph in its copyright infringement case against Viacom. As is the way of things, Viacom appealed the decision, and now the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to breathe new life into Viacom's case. Apparently, the appeals judge didn't see eye to eye with the District Court's ruling that no reasonable jury could have found that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of infringement on its site.

You see, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) requires such awareness for service providers like YouTube to be guilty of copyright infringement, and that safe harbor provision was the grounds for YouTube's victory on summary judgment. Furthermore, to succeed on summary judgment, YouTube had to prove that no reasonable jury could find that it knew of any infringing activity. While the lower court felt that YouTube carried that burden, the appeals judge disagreed, and has remanded the case back down for the District Court to determine if YouTube knew about or willfully ignored the infringement. What does this mean? All we can say for sure is that it'll expend more judicial resources and make more money for the attorneys involved. The result could very well end up, once again, in YouTube's favor, but we'll have to wait and see.

]]>
Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:23:00 -040021|20209537http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/oracle-and-google-get-a-trial-date-april-16th-is-the-start-of-a/%3Futm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%26ncid%3Drss_semi
http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/oracle-and-google-get-a-trial-date-april-16th-is-the-start-of-a/http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/oracle-and-google-get-a-trial-date-april-16th-is-the-start-of-a/%3Futm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%23commentsAs regular readers of this site are well aware, Google and Oracle have had an ongoing legal spat for nearly two years now. In the time since the lawsuit's filing, the legal claims have been narrowed, damages claims have been adjusted, reduced, and reduced again. All that activity, plus continuous settlement talks caused the trial to be delayed several times. But now it appears that the two sides have officially reached an impasse, and so the tech giants will go to trial on April 16th to determine if Android illicitly pulled code from Java. Will Oracle get paid? Will Google and its green bots be gloating in the end? Pop some popcorn and settle in, folks, we'll start getting some answers in a couple weeks.

]]>
Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:37:00 -040021|20206922http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/01/pirate-bay-founders-lose-final-appeal-in-sweden-prison-looms-on/%3Futm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%26ncid%3Drss_semi
http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/01/pirate-bay-founders-lose-final-appeal-in-sweden-prison-looms-on/http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/01/pirate-bay-founders-lose-final-appeal-in-sweden-prison-looms-on/%3Futm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%23commentsIt looks like Pirate Bay's legal drama has finally come to a close in Sweden, where the Supreme Court today turned down the site's final appeal. At the center of the case are the file sharing site's founders -- Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundström -- who have been battling Swedish prosecutors for quite a few years now. After being convicted of facilitating copyright infringement, the trio was initially sentenced to prison. They appealed the ruling in 2010 and, though they failed to overturn it, managed to see their 12-month sentences reduced by between two and eight months. Today, though, their final attempts were shot down, with the Court's dismissal. The fines and prison terms remain the same: ten months for Neij, eight months for Sunde and four for Lundström. There's also a fourth co-founder involved, Gottfrid Svartholm, who has been absent from several hearings. Under today's ruling, his original 12-month sentence will stand, and the four men will have to pay a total of $6.8 million in damages. Because the case has dragged on for at least five years, however, there's a chance that the sentences could be reduced by 12 months (bringing them down to zero), as is common in the Swedish legal system. The decision on this matter, however, remains with the court. TorrentFreak reports that at least one defendant intends to appeal to the European Court of Justice, though the results wouldn't have any effect on Sweden's decision.

]]>
Wed, 01 Feb 2012 08:11:00 -050021|20161705http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/23/in-the-wake-of-megaupload-crackdown-fear-forces-similar-sites-t/%3Futm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%26ncid%3Drss_semi
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/23/in-the-wake-of-megaupload-crackdown-fear-forces-similar-sites-t/http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/23/in-the-wake-of-megaupload-crackdown-fear-forces-similar-sites-t/%3Futm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%23commentsThe Feds put the smackdown on Megaupload and its whole executive team last week, charging them with criminal charges for copyright infringement and racketeering in addition to conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and money laundering. As a result, it appears that several other cloud locker companies have curbed their sharing ways to avoid similar DOJ entanglements. FileSonic and Fileserve have eliminated file sharing from their service menus, and Uploaded.to is no longer available to those of us in the US. Naturally, none of these companies have said that Megaupload's legal problems are the reason for the changes, but the timing suggests it's more than mere coincidence. Disagree? Feel free to speculate about the possibilities in the comments below, and let us know if any other online storage services have made similar moves while you're at it.

It's been a little more than a year since the US government began seizing domains of music blogs, torrent meta-trackers and sports streaming sites. The copyright infringement investigation, led by US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities, quickly raised eyebrows among many free speech and civil rights advocates, fueling a handful of legal challenges. Few are more compelling, or frightening than a case involving Dajaz1.com. As TechDirt reports, the popular hip-hop blog has been at the epicenter of a sinuous and seemingly dystopian dispute with the feds -- one that underscores the heightening controversy surrounding federal web regulation, and blurs the constitutional divide between free speech and intellectual property protection.

Dajaz1 was initially seized under the 2008 Pro IP Act, on the strength of an affidavit that cited several published songs as evidence of copyright infringement. As it turns out, ,any of these songs were actually provided by their copyright holders themselves, but that didn't stop the government from seizing the URL anyway, and plastering a warning all over its homepage. Typically, this kind of action would be the first phase of a two-step process. Once a property is seized, US law dictates that the government has 60 days to notify its owner, who can then choose to file a request for its return. If the suspect chooses to file this request within a 35-day window, the feds must then undertake a so-called forfeiture process within 90 days. Failure to do so would require the government to return the property to its rightful owner. But that's not exactly how things played out in the case of Dajaz1. For more details on the saga, head past the break.

]]>
Fri, 09 Dec 2011 15:21:00 -050021|20124247http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/27/uk-court-orders-isp-to-block-newzbin-2-filesharing-site-within-t/%3Futm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%26ncid%3Drss_semi
http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/27/uk-court-orders-isp-to-block-newzbin-2-filesharing-site-within-t/http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/27/uk-court-orders-isp-to-block-newzbin-2-filesharing-site-within-t/%3Futm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%23comments
Pirates just can't catch a break these days. Way back in July, a British judge ordered telecom company BT to block its subscribers from visiting a site called Newzbin 2, on the grounds that the ISP had "actual knowledge" of customers using the platform access copyright infringing content. An appeal was soon filed, but yesterday, it was shot down by a high court. Under the order, BT will have 14 days to seal off access to Newzbin 2, and will have to do so on its own dime -- something the provider was aiming to avoid. The decision marks the first time that an ISP has been forced to block access to a filesharing site, something the Motion Picture Association heralded as "a win for the creative sector." BT, meanwhile, didn't have much to say about the ruling, stating only that "it is helpful to have the order now and the clarity that it brings." Less certain, however, is the impact this order will have on future copyright lawsuits and web censorship, in general. Find the ruling in its entirety at the coverage link, below.

]]>
Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:56:00 -040021|20091678http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/29/psystar-loses-appeal-in-battle-with-apple-told-to-ditch-mac-clo/%3Futm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%26ncid%3Drss_semi
http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/29/psystar-loses-appeal-in-battle-with-apple-told-to-ditch-mac-clo/http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/29/psystar-loses-appeal-in-battle-with-apple-told-to-ditch-mac-clo/%3Futm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%23comments
We're sure Psystar, its lawyers and its tens of fans, didn't really expect to win the appeal it filed following the permanent injunction handed down against its commercial hackintoshes, but you can't blame the company for trying. A little over three years after the drama began, with Apple suing to ban Psystar's products, it seems the epic tale has come to an end. The company hasn't really been in business since December of '09 anyway, so today's ruling upholding the injunction won't make much of a difference either way. We're just sad that this may, in fact, be the last time we ever hear from Eugene Action -- let's take a moment to reminisce, shall we?

]]>
Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:11:00 -040021|20070022http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/11/zediva-puts-the-brakes-on-its-streaming-service-soothes-your-fe/%3Futm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%26ncid%3Drss_semi
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/11/zediva-puts-the-brakes-on-its-streaming-service-soothes-your-fe/http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/11/zediva-puts-the-brakes-on-its-streaming-service-soothes-your-fe/%3Futm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%23commentsZediva fought the law and the law shut it down. The unique DVD rental service, sued by the MPAA and Hollywood studios for running afoul of licensing and distribution agreements, has temporarily closed shop. A statement on the outfit's website optimistically refers to the court-ordered injunction as an "intermission," pointing to a hopeful future resumption of operations, and guaranteeing customers a solution for unused credits. The company's promised to fight back against Judge Walter's decision, and is in the process of appealing the ruling that could see it facing a permanent service blackout. We hope for the sake of its "DVD-changing monkeys" that all parties involved can work this out. Make sure to head past the break for Zediva's full explanation.

]]>
Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:37:00 -040021|20015613http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/07/us-judge-wont-return-seized-url-to-rojadirecta-com-absolutamen/%3Futm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%26ncid%3Drss_semi
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/07/us-judge-wont-return-seized-url-to-rojadirecta-com-absolutamen/http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/07/us-judge-wont-return-seized-url-to-rojadirecta-com-absolutamen/%3Futm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%23comments
Welcome to the homepage of popular sports streaming and p2p site Rojadirecta.com. Why all the birdy logos and harsh words about going to prison? Well, it's a convoluted story, which began when a whole bunch of sports sites -- including Rojadirecta -- were summarily seized by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, based on "probable cause to believe" they'd been involved in copyright infringement. Awkwardly, the Spanish owners of this particular site had already been cleared of any wrongdoing by courts in Spain, but this counted for nada because their .com URL was American. So, their one hope was to convince a US judge that the seizure violated the First Amendment and should be overturned. This case won support from freedom of speech activists like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, but on Thursday it finally failed. The presiding judge ruled that no rights had been violated, because Rojadirecta could easily set up shop at a non-US address and continue to function. Bad news indeed for the Spaniards -- maybe they should move to the UK, where due process takes a whole lot longer.

]]>
Sun, 07 Aug 2011 04:01:00 -040021|20011132http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/02/zedivas-dvd-rental-service-ordered-to-close-shop-hollywood-pop/%3Futm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%26ncid%3Drss_semi
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/02/zedivas-dvd-rental-service-ordered-to-close-shop-hollywood-pop/http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/02/zedivas-dvd-rental-service-ordered-to-close-shop-hollywood-pop/%3Futm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%23commentsZediva's loophole-exploiting DVD rental service has just been dealt a lethal blow by Judge John F. Walter. The recent court-ordered preliminary injunction effectively halts the company's ability to rent its library to users across the internet's great streaming divide. Citing irreparable damages to both the nascent video on demand market and Hollywood's bottom line, the federal judge found Zediva's business in violation of studios' exclusive right to public performance of copyrighted works. The bizarro Netflix alternative had been operating without the normal licensing restrictions required by the industry and despite its claims of imminent ruination, will have to close shop. For its part, the unique startup has vowed to appeal the ruling, but if that doesn't work, at least its creators can watch No Strings Attached ad nauseum.

]]>
Tue, 02 Aug 2011 19:41:00 -040021|20007439http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/29/british-judge-doesnt-like-the-cut-of-newzbin-2s-jib-orders-bt/%3Futm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%26ncid%3Drss_semi
http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/29/british-judge-doesnt-like-the-cut-of-newzbin-2s-jib-orders-bt/http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/29/british-judge-doesnt-like-the-cut-of-newzbin-2s-jib-orders-bt/%3Futm_source%3DFeed_Classic%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DEngadget%23comments
Shiver-me-timbers, it looks like the movie studios' latest legal broadside just scored a direct hit against the big bad pirate ship. A UK judge has ordered telecoms giant BT to block its subscribers from visiting Newzbin 2, a site which aggregates Usenet downloads, on the simple basis that BT knows some of its customers are using the site to breach copyright law and therefore has a duty to stop them. This counts as an unprecedented victory for the Motion Picture Association, who brought the case, and it potentially arms them with a new weapon to force ISPs to block other sites in future. Could that be Newzbin 3 we spy on the horizon?